Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Boyce Adams, Utility Execs and More Smoking Guns

As if we haven't seen enough to know that Boyce Adams is the hand-picked utility company's candidate, this week brings even more evidence.
Boyce Adams announced on his Facebook page today that he had been endorsed by the "Bully Bloc", a PAC supposedly dedicated to helping Mississippi State University. Well, take a guess who the founder of "Bully Bloc" was. You guessed it, a utility company executive. Don't take my word for it, here's the article that shows that Haley Fisackerly, the President and CEO of Entergy Mississippi was the group's founder.
Not only was Fisackelry the founder, he STILL sits on the executive committee. Again, don't take my word for it check it out here. Scroll to the bottom and you'll find Fisackerly's name.
So far we have learned that Adams supports the largest rate hike in Mississippi history ($2.8 billion), calls current Commissioner Brandon Presley a "bully" for fighting rate hikes, has a former Chief Financial Officer of a regional utility company running his campaign, and now he accepts the endorsement of groups founded and run by utility executives whose companies are regulated by the PSC!
It seems that at the very least Boyce Adams has a real judgement problem. He must actually think the Public Service Commission is there to protect the utility companies rather than the people.


bill said...

Man, you are stretching it here. So Haley Fisackerly should leave an organization he loves, and that organization should give up its First Amendment rights just because he works for Entergy? Hope there aren't any utility company employees who have contributed to Presley. I'm sure you'll report it promptly if that's the case.

Two points that you seem to have missed. One, energy isn't free. There's a cost to producing it and the consumers rightly pay for what they use. Two, the Kemper plant will provide us with abundant energy for generations, and any rate increase that comes with it's development will be more than offset by the savings we'll realize from it over the years it will be operating. Bill Billingsley

Cottonmouth said...


First, Fisackerly is free to support whomever he wishes. Just as I am free to point out to everyone where his interests lie.

Second, Fisackerly is the CEO of an energy company, not an average employee. As CEO, his job is to increase profits. Period. Your average Entergy employee has other responsibilities more directly tied to energy production and delivery.

Third, I never said energy was free. To claim that is a "point I missed" is laughable.

Fourth, your economic assessment of the Kemper plant is not supported by any independent analysis.

bill said...

Okay, you got me. Yes, you're free to point out that Haley Fisackerly is a prominent person in the energy business. However, to suggest that somehow the Bully Bloc's endorsement of Boyce Adams is somehow "even more evidence" that Adams is "the hand-picked utility company's candidate" is still a stretch. There are plenty of others who were in on the founding of the Bully Bloc over four years ago before Boyce Adams was a candidate for anything, and plenty of others who still sit on its executive committee who aren't involved in the energy industry. The Bully Bloc, along with Haley Fisackerly and others who are involved with it, consistently supports conservative candidates, and Boyce Adams is the conservative candidate in this race. It doesn't have anything to do with who works where.

The reason I was concerned that you had missed the point on energy not being free is that your original post led me to believe that rate increases were always a bad thing. Sometimes the customers have to pay for the increased cost of the product. I hate it when prices of anything go up, but sometimes prices have to go up in order to save in the long term, which is what this is all about.

Not sure what you mean by independent analysis of the Kemper plant. One that says it's no good, perhaps? I often find that liberals are quick to point out bias in any study that doesn't support their position. Maybe there are experts on both sides of the argument and all of them are biased, but logic would seem to indicate that an expensive plant producing cheap energy would pay for itself over a period of time. I think the argument against the coal fired plant is more environmental and political than financial, but I like the long term impact that a new source of cheap electricity will have on the state.

Sorry it seems to be just me and you on this...Bill